stating that the “nonmoving party must rely on more than conclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or the mere existence of a ‘scintilla of evidence’ to oppose summary judgment.”
How later courts described this case
- stating that the “nonmoving party must rely on more than conclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or the mere existence of a ‘scintilla of evidence’ to oppose summary judgment.”
- stating that at summary judgment, a nonmoving party must rely on “more than conclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence”
- observing that “in some cases, like Bonner, the infringement will form such a significant aspect of the product generating the claimed revenues that no further evidence will be required to establish that those revenues were causally linked to the infringement”
- noting that as the nonmoving party rebutting the lack of evidence in the record, a plaintiff “must rely on more than conclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DAVIS, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment:
I concur in the judgment.